That's weird. I noticed the post being marked as a dupe from the same community but I only saw one entry.

It’s from 2015, so its probably what you are doing anyway

No, you are probably not using this at all. The problem with JSON is that this details are all handled in an implementation-defined way, and most implementation just fail/round silently.

Just give it a try and send down the wire a JSON with, say, a huge integer, and see if that triggers a parsing error. For starters, in .NET both Newtonsoft and System.Text.Json set a limit of 64 bits.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.text.json.jsonserializeroptions.maxdepth

I’ve never heard of evading null with a Null object.

This is quite standard, and in fact it's even a safety feature. C++ introduced nullptr defined as an instance of std::nullptr_t explicitly with this in mind.

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/nullptr

This approach is also quite basic in monadic types.

std::unordered_map is one of the worst ones

It should be noted that the benchmark focused on the std::unordered_map implementation from GCC 13.2.0. I'm not sure if/how this conclusion can be extended to other implementations such as msvc or clang.

I think I’m gonna use Bazel anyways

Last time I checked, Bazel barely supported externa libraries and had zero support for shared libraries. Admittedly that's been a while, but those are pretty basic features to be missing.

IDE integration is also critical, and Bazel has nothing to show for in this regard.

Lastly, most of the benefits that Bazel advertises can be had with CMake by simply switching it's generator to something like Ninja, which is trivial and supports compiler cache tools such as ccache right out of the box.

Additionally to note, when doing CMake stuff, it’s generally best to stick to the modern way of doing things

I'd add that the so called Modern CMake is well over a decade old. There is no excuse for people to choose to be miserable.

Personally I prefer calling "Modern CMake" as simply CMake, and the old way of using CMake as "you're doing it very wrong, invest 5 minutes going through a tutorial."

Wtf? How is rust unfun?

The Rusty community itself stated in no uncertain terms that even they believe Rust is already too complex, and the numbers of those expressing that concern are growing every year.

https://www.infoworld.com/article/3713264/rust-developers-concerned-about-complexity-low-usage.html

Honestly if you think rust is unfun I can’t imagine you’ll get along with c++

Please leave that fanboy attitude at the door. It does no one any good.

That is the work of a software engineer.

To build upon this, we need to keep in mind that at least in some jurisdictions the role of a certified engineer is only required in projects with relevant size, and the responsibility of that engineer is to ensure the project complies with all requirements and therefore be held responsible for any mishap. This means that it's perfectly fine if non-engineers work independently on complex tasks, provided that an engineer attests that their output is fine and takes responsibility in case it isn't and it causes problems.

Poorly defined nomenclature. Simple as that. I’m an “automation engineer”, have had many other titles (...)

Anyone can call themselves what they feel like it. However, in some jurisdictions and contexts the title "engineer" does have a specific meaning, consisting of someone who not only has the necessary and sufficient training but also is a member of a specific professional body. These credentials have meaning and those who try to pass themselves off as one without having the certification or credentials might be breaking laws.

(...) so more open standards and just Web apps instead of proprietary apps

What do you classify as "proprietary apps", and from the user's standpoint where do you see a difference between them and web apps?

Does it have to?

If you're a developer looking for a pastime working on a personal project, no. You're free to waste your time and effort doing anything that pleases you.

Everyone else in the world only bothers with something if it provides any value at all. If a project such as this one fails to provide any value them no one will have any reason to waste their time with it, no matter how many times you rewrite it in Rust.

Something in the dependency tree will yell at you that it is deprecated or discontinued.

Only if you didn't pinned the dependencies you actually consume, and expect that all your dependencies magically comply with semver.

Blindly replacing dependency versions never worked, at least reliably. If you do not put in the work to ensure things work, more often than not you'll be surprised by them not working.